Legalise ALL drugs?

[Hostile55]

First of all I should mention that I live in britain. Just so there isn't any confusion.

Yesterday I heard on the radio that the liberal democrat MEP, Chris Davies has called for the legalisation of ALL drugs, including heroin and cocaine. He claims that the current system of prohibition "...creates the profits which drive the growth of the trade," and "...leads to the corruption of our institutions and provides funds for terrorism." He also pointed out that illegal drug users can't be sure of what, exactly, it is they are purchasing.

The green party also call for this. http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mfss/drugs.html

Drugscope cheif executive Martin Barnes, however, argues "We are not convinced that legalisation would end the harms caused by drugs and it is difficult to predict what the consequences would be, particularly on levels of use.

"When you consider the huge profits made from tobacco and alcohol smuggling, it would be naive to suggest that legalisation would see the end of the criminal drugs trade."

Now I remember when the "War on Terror" had begun, the comedien Billy Connely said;

"War on Terror? Well I hope it works out better than the war on drugs! Fat lot of good they got there for their 2 billion."

I'm unsure wheather his figure of 2 billion was acurrate but the point is that so much money is being spent trying to keep illegal drugs off our streets and the problem just gets worse. Worse in more ways than one. First of all the numbers of addicts has been increasing exponentially. This results in more money going into the coffers of dangerous criminals. And finally drugs are audulterated and diluted often with quite hazardous chemicals. These "controled substances" are OUT of control.

How could legalising drugs help? Well first of all they could be regulated, ie. dosage and quality assured. Less risk of overdose and NO risk of unknowingly shooting up rat poison. Then they could be taxed. This extra revenue together with the money saved from not trying to arrest drug dealers could be used to improve the health and education systems. Also some of this money could be better used on the local level, in communities, to provide recreation, and counselling services for youths, to help deal with some of the issues which result in drug addiction in the first place.

These arguments have been posed before and shot down with counter claims about the possibility of "giving people the wrong impression - that drugs are safe," and that drug abuse could spiral out of control as a result. But my attitude is that this issue should not be considered on its own. That drug addiction is mearly one symptom of a deeper underlying promblem. That problem is with society itself. We need to rethink the way that we operate, the way we interact with others and the way we think about others aswell as ourselves. The system has to be reworked starting with education. Voter apathy is another problem, certainly in britain. Only 60% of the electorate bothered to turn up last time. Why don't we get taught about government and how it works from an early age?
"Now this is Mr. Brown and his job is to look after the countries money." Then perhaps people wouldn't feel so disconected from it all and a little more empowered. If everybody grew up with some knowlege of how our system works and how it can be changed if needs be, then we might find that less of them would turn to chemical induced oblivion. If reality seemed more plyable, then it would be a little less uncomfortable.

The final point I would like to make here is one pertaining to civil liberties. Surely we should have the right, as fully fledged, "responsible" adults, what we want to do with our bodies. If we want to eat lots of saturated fat and take little exercise, inspite of the known consequences, then who should force us to do otherwise? If, alternatively, we want to drink our way into an early grave, surely it is our prerogative. Indeed there are no laws against these in britain and I'm sure in the USA either. So why then are we told that we are not allowed to use some chemicals and plants, some of which are addictive some of which aren't, some of which do detriment to our health some of which do not? Who makes these decisions and what are their motives? Free for all I say.

[Osborn F Enready]

"Prohibition... goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control mans' appetite through legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not even crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our Government was founded."
-Abraham Lincoln (December 1840)

That was of course, pertaining to American government.

I find it hard to disagree though, as I feel people have every right to decide what is or is not put into THEIR body, regardless of public consensus.

To me it is not a question of "if" any government has rights to limit your intake of anything, since they obviously don't if you believe in rights and property.

I am not sure about Englands laws, or their view on rights and individualism, but I would never respect a system that didn't allow me to ingest what I deemed acceptable.
(hence the reason I am so adamant about our nations ass-backward stance, since it is obviously violating every right it vowed to uphold and protect in the constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights, and every oath taken for public office.)

[Prometheus]

Make everything legal. There is no reason to legislate what an adult can eat, drink or ingest.

[Milton Bradley]

I voted make everything legal. At least at the Federal level.


If any drug laws are to be made, they should be made at the local, or State level, where the true authority to rule on such matters really exists.

[livvie]

Legalising all drugs is the worst idea i've ever heard. As if it wasn't easy enough to get hold of drug already! The number of addicts would increase not to mention the number of OD incidents. Yes it's bad now but it could easily be worse.

[Alive]

Quote by: Hostile55 Drugscope cheif executive Martin Barnes, however, argues "We are not convinced that legalisation would end the harms caused by drugs and it is difficult to predict what the consequences would be, particularly on levels of use. "When you consider the huge profits made from tobacco and alcohol smuggling, it would be naive to suggest that legalisation would see the end of the criminal drugs trade."

While tobacco and alcohol aren't actually illegal, they are subject to taxes and restrictions which have the same intention and effect as illegalizing (just on a smaller scale); that's where the smuggling profits come from. Just allow businesses to sell what they want and people to buy what they want and you will see the end of drug smuggling. And the end to crimes associated with drug smuggling.

[Osborn F Enready]

livvie said:
The number of addicts would increase not to mention the number of OD incidents.

I say:
On what evidence would you base this assumption?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: livvie Legalising all drugs is the worst idea i've ever heard. As if it wasn't easy enough to get hold of drug already! The number of addicts would increase not to mention the number of OD incidents. Yes it's bad now but it could easily be worse.

Prohibition laws created thr Black Market. Ask your self what is worse. Some people who have personal problems to work through, or a proliferation of guns, and violence.


You imply the truth in you own post. People will get drugs if they want them. Why tax eveybody else that lives in this country with the extra cost of "prohibiting" things that cannot realistically be prohibited?


You have not even addressed the fact the the Federal government has no legal authority to ban vegtebles. It is important to recognise that critical bit of information if you wish to have a discussion about the "facts".

[Milton Bradley]

The Federal governement claims that the powers to regulate drugs comes from the War, and Emergency Powers Act, which they say gives them the power to regulate everythung under the Sun.


http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep1.html


Concentrating power into the hands of the Executive Branch is an interesting tactic for a group that claim to run a representative government. It is so comforting knowing that they are ready to hear everybodies opinion, and reflect those findings with their votes.

[IGX]

The relevant question here is *Do humans own their bodies?* Government whores seem to think they don't, and presume to know what's best for everyone.

Stop looking to "government" as an external authority and their opinions (statutes, code, laws etc.) will become ineffective and unenforceable. The only necessary law, to avoid chaos, is *harm no one*.

[jose]

Quote by: livvie Legalising all drugs is the worst idea i've ever heard. As if it wasn't easy enough to get hold of drug already! The number of addicts would increase not to mention the number of OD incidents. Yes it's bad now but it could easily be worse.

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS THAT KILL: ANOTHER KIND OF DRUG PROBLEM
A medical report in 1998 estimated that adverse reactions to prescription drugs are killing about 106,000 Americans each year -- roughly three times as many as are killed by automobiles.[1] This makes prescription drugs the fourth leading killer in the U.S., after heart disease, cancer, and stroke. The report included only drugs that were given properly and under normal circumstances, excluding drugs that were administered in error or taken in attempted suicides. (When errors of administration are included, the death toll may be as high as 140,000 per year.[2] Such errors include prescribing the wrong drug or the wrong dosage; giving medications to the wrong person; giving medications to the right person but in the wrong quantities or the wrong frequencies, and so forth.) http://consumerlawpage.com/article/d...hat_kill.shtml

[Prometheus]

Is this a condemnation of the pharma industry, or a counterpoint to illegal drug OD's. Because if it is the former, you are cordially invited to shit the hell up. If it's the latter - meh. It's a free country. You should be able to take whatever you want.

[jose]

My point was more people are killed by prescribed drugs than illegal ones.
and as for the ¨shit the hell up¨ comment, you can eat my grits after they come out

[Logjam]

The question is incomplete and therefore meaningless.

Just what kinds of drugs do you mean? Do you mean medicine? Or just those drugs that we consider illegal today, such as cocain, Speed, grass, etc?

[Osborn F Enready]

I think the question should be:
Should the Federal Government be allowed to dictate or regulate what is or is not acceptable to be ingested into the human body by voluntary means?

Are cravings able to be regulated by the Federal Government?

[YourTokah]

and the answer should be - No.

[Osborn F Enready]

Word Tokah, WORD.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think the question should be: Should the Federal Government be allowed to dictate or regulate what is or is not acceptable to be ingested into the human body by voluntary means? Are cravings able to be regulated by the Federal Government?

This is *definitely* the important point.

Let's no quibble over what drugs are more or less dangerous or addictive. Any delineation you make is arbitrary.

The only substantial argument is on the value of personal freedom.

I say that allowing people to ingest what they want better supports personal freedom then chriminalization.

[Rave7pt0]

I'm generally in the legalize it all camp, but I do have a thought.

What do you people think about predatory sales tactics? What if you can hook a kid on something very addictive and very deadly? Isn't that a risk out of proportion to the freedom it offers?

[tivodan1116]

Thus the best reason for legalization. Unlike illegal drugs, with legal drugs (prescriptions, alcohol, tobacco) there are legitimate businesses involved and so they have more motivation, as law-abiding businesses, to "do the right thing" and not sell drugs to underage people.

Coming from the perspective of the criminal justice system, it is oftentimes easier for children to get illegal drugs then tobacco or alcohol. Legal drugs are sold in stores with cameras and largely law-abiding employees and business licenses that can be revoked and liquor licenses and modern computers checking ID and so on, not to mention dozens of people around observing the transactions (other customers and such). Illegal drugs are sold in back alleys and street corners, by cash businesses that are unlicensed and unregulated. Drug dealers have no incentive whatsoever to only sell to adults, because the punishment is the same no matter who winds up the end user.

Also, the "predatory sales tactics" you speak of are largely fictional, invented by foaming-mouth drug warriors to portray drug dealers as assaultive aggressive "pushers" when in reality their product is much to expensive and in too high a demand to be either giving it away or pushing it on people that don't really want it. In short -- This isn't last year's fashions they're selling, there's no need for them to have a "fire sale" to move merchandise.